Then you are looking at noise reduction, no way that d800 has more noise from 400iso and up to 6400iso than 1dx

et näe metsää puilta

Maybe the forest can't be seen for the trees, because you're showing a picture of skyscrapers and not trees? You are posting about high ISO noise, then showing data about dynamic range (calculated as full well minus read noise). Read noise contributes to the DR calculation, but there are more factors that contribute to high ISO noise than just read noise, and Shooter is actually looking at real-world images - something that must carry significant weight in this discussion. Even then, if you look at Claff's read noise vs. ISO plot (which is far more relevant to this discussion), you'll see that between ISO 500 and ISO 4000, the 1D X has lower read noise than the D800. You might also try showing the D800, not the D800E, since the former is the camera under discussion (although the differences are minor, the D800E has a slight advantage in most measurements, which is perhaps why some people choose to show those data instead, to accentuate any differences with other models). I wonder why you opted to show the less relevant DR data to support your point, instead of the more relevant read noise data, which are entirely consistent with Shooter's statements based on real-world observations, but with which you disagree?

Finally! Someone came through with some useful data that actually supports what people are seeing in the field (no pun intended).

Then you are looking at noise reduction, no way that d800 has more noise from 400iso and up to 6400iso than 1dx

et näe metsää puilta

Maybe the forest can't be seen for the trees, because you're showing a picture of skyscrapers and not trees? You are posting about high ISO noise, then showing data about dynamic range (calculated as full well minus read noise). Read noise contributes to the DR calculation, but there are more factors that contribute to high ISO noise than just read noise, and Shooter is actually looking at real-world images - something that must carry significant weight in this discussion. Even then, if you look at Claff's read noise vs. ISO plot (which is far more relevant to this discussion), you'll see that between ISO 500 and ISO 4000, the 1D X has lower read noise than the D800. You might also try showing the D800, not the D800E, since the former is the camera under discussion (although the differences are minor, the D800E has a slight advantage in most measurements, which is perhaps why some people choose to show those data instead, to accentuate any differences with other models). I wonder why you opted to show the less relevant DR data to support your point, instead of the more relevant read noise data, which are entirely consistent with Shooter's statements based on real-world observations, but with which you disagree?

AhaI see no difference from the two cameras and raw files if the images are presented in the same size and higher iso and we have them both in the company

AhaI see no difference from the two cameras and raw files if the images are presented in the same size and higher iso and we have them both in the company

Aha, indeed. So, you show William Claff's data to support your argument that there's no difference in high ISO DR between the cameras, and I point out that his data also show there is a read noise advantage for the 1D X at midrange ISO values. You now show DxOMark data that there's no major SNR difference between the 1D X and D800 at those ISO values, refuting Claff's data. But, then...what does DxOMark say about the DR difference at high ISO? They say the 1D X has an advantage in DR at higher ISOs.

How do you say in Finnish, "You can't have your cake and eat it too?"

You are choosing data to support your point, but ignoring data from the same sources that refute other points. I know scientists who do that very same thing, and I don't respect their objectivity or conclusions.

... that's the reason why people can rather live with bad high ISO performance. It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.

Which people? You? Not me. I shoot indoors in ambient light a lot. Much of my outdoor shooting is birds/wildlife at dawn and dusk or under overcast skies, often at f/5.6 or f/8 (and please don't suggest a faster lens - I'm using a 600mm f/4L IS II with a 1.4xIII or 2xIII for the necessary reach). So for me, without access to that magic wand, the lowest ISO I can often get away with is 1600, and I'm usually at ISO 3200 - 6400. I can't live with bad ISO performance.

Your 'logic' seems to have a high level of personal bias...

Couldn't agree more with this (although I don't have a 600mm f/4 yet). I care VERY much about high ISO performance, and generally care not a wit about low ISO performance. I care VERY much whether future cameras have good-quality noise at high ISO, have a higher high-ISO S/N, higher Q.E. (which should generally lead to better noise performance at high ISO), etc. It is not any more OK for high ISO to perform poorly than for low ISO to perform poorly in a "general" sense.

AhaI see no difference from the two cameras and raw files if the images are presented in the same size and higher iso and we have them both in the company

Aha, indeed. So, you show William Claff's data to support your argument that there's no difference in high ISO DR between the cameras, and I point out that his data also show there is a read noise advantage for the 1D X at midrange ISO values. You now show DxOMark data that there's no major SNR difference between the 1D X and D800 at those ISO values, refuting Claff's data. But, then...what does DxOMark say about the DR difference at high ISO? They say the 1D X has an advantage in DR at higher ISOs.

How do you say in Finnish, "You can't have your cake and eat it too?"

You are choosing data to support your point, but ignoring data from the same sources that refute other points. I know scientists who do that very same thing, and I don't respect their objectivity or conclusions.

AhaI see no difference from the two cameras and raw files if the images are presented in the same size and higher iso and we have them both in the company

Aha, indeed. So, you show William Claff's data to support your argument that there's no difference in high ISO DR between the cameras, and I point out that his data also show there is a read noise advantage for the 1D X at midrange ISO values. You now show DxOMark data that there's no major SNR difference between the 1D X and D800 at those ISO values, refuting Claff's data. But, then...what does DxOMark say about the DR difference at high ISO? They say the 1D X has an advantage in DR at higher ISOs.

How do you say in Finnish, "You can't have your cake and eat it too?"

You are choosing data to support your point, but ignoring data from the same sources that refute other points. I know scientists who do that very same thing, and I don't respect their objectivity or conclusions.

I was showing values from Claff and DXO and as you can se that d800 and 5dmk3are similar at high iso.I-R has raw files from the two , but be sure that you are selecting the right one, Canon 5dmk3 has at 12800iso the same time and f-stop that nikon has at 6400Iso. 1 stop difference and Canons 6400iso has been exposed after 1/790sec . So if you shall compare them you must compare Canon 12800 fejk iso with Nikons 6400iso and there you have the same parameters regarding time and f-stop . d800 to the right so be carefully when you are talking about high iso results and the parameters are not the same

canon rumors FORUM

jukka

So if you will discuss high iso reproduction , noise and resolution with me ,first look after that Canon have been exposed the same time as Nikon, Canon can not have a longer exposure time , and sometimes a whole Stop more and then call it for example 12800iso , when in fact it is 6400iso

Also the two pro cameras exposed completely different Canon 1DX exposed much longer compared to NikonWe are comparing "Canon" ISO and " Nikon" ISO and the results of the test target

So...Claff is right wrong, DxOMark is wrongright wrong, and now IR is right, but only if we look at different ISO settings but try to match the other exposure settings, and only if we stop talking about the 1D X and start talking about the 5DIII instead.

...first look after that Canon have been exposed the same time as Nikon, Canon can not have a longer exposure time , and sometimes a whole Stop more and then call it for example 12800iso , when in fact it is 6400iso

You are saying the IR images are differently exposed, but 'we' weren't talking about IR data at all, nor were 'we' talking about the 5DIII - you are the only one doing that. Where are your data showing that DxOMark and William Claff exposed the test images for the 1D X and D800 differently? Or now that you've decided their data no longer support whatever argument it is you're trying to make, we should stop talking about them and start talking about different data on different cameras, is that it? We should also ignore the fact that different lenses set to the same f/stop may very well have different T-stops, which would necessitate different exposure settings. Really hate those inconvenient truths...

Let me get this straight. You show Claff data supporting a point, when shown Claff data refuting that point, you show DxOMark data to refute the Claff data. When shown DxOMark data refuting the earlier Claff data, you bring out IR data about different cameras than were being previously discussed. What's next? Roger Clark data comparing the 40D to the D90?

So if you will discuss high iso reproduction , noise and resolution with me ,first look after that Canon have been exposed the same time as Nikon, Canon can not have a longer exposure time , and sometimes a whole Stop more and then call it for example 12800iso , when in fact it is 6400iso

Your arguments are clearly biased and have become tangential. Discussion with someone displaying an obvious bias is ultimately fruitless, so I'm done discussing anything with you. Have a good night.

jukka

Here is the difference in exposure time, 6400iso and from 5dmk3 and d800, as you all can se Canon are exposed much longer than Nikon, Canon can not hold the iso against the test target and needs longer exposure.Not good

said it before and will say it again... i have seen the light! Obviously charts and more charts are the way! I think from now on instead of giving clients images to review, I will just have dxo measure them, translate it to charts, and send my clients the charts and let them choose that way! Cause that's all that matters right? I mean who cares about images, lets just review charts all day!

said it before and will say it again... i have seen the light! Obviously charts and more charts are the way! I think from now on instead of giving clients images to review, I will just have dxo measure them, translate it to charts, and send my clients the charts and let them choose that way! Cause that's all that matters right? I mean who cares about images, lets just review charts all day!

Let's suppose same image taken by same photographer, but using two cameras. One has an off the charts IQ and another does not. Which image would you rather give to your client?

The fuss is about when you are comparing high iso ,noise, resolution the parameters must be the same from d800 and 5dmk3 as one example , and Canon has a tradition to need longer exposure time even if the ISO and target is the same. If you are shooting sports, flying birds it is easy to understand that 1/1600sec from Nikon gives better results than 1/790sec from Canon.We have a so to speak one "Canon ISO and a Nikon ISO" and they are not including the same parameters .

You can go through all Canon cameras at I-R and the same test target and compare the exposure time that Canon must have in comparison to Nikon .So before you people are talking about noise in higher iso, look at the parameters time/f-stop for that given iso and from the cameras, in this case there is 1 stop difference.In 1dx and d4 case there are little less.